What does this mean? What qualifies as "good enough"?
If you're not fired, you're good enough for your boss.
There are billions of people from poor regions who would put in way more effort than you. Many of them are smarter too. You make $100K / year to spend 35 hours / week drinking coffee and writing JavaScript, they make like $10K / year to spend 60 hours / week physical labor and getting yelled at. You'll never be good enough for them.
Also, there are 7+ billion people in the world. That means there are millions if not billions more talented than you. You're probably not even the most talented in your group.
But why does any of that matter? Literally nobody is good enough by those standards.
There's no objective "good enough". Those people from poor regions who work their asses off deserve more, you don't deserve less. In my eyes, don't be an asshole, contribute to society in some way, and you're good enough.
Except maybe one objective "good enough": if you're not fired, you're good enough for your boss. Honestly, some bosses have unrealistic standards so even that doesn't count.
It means that the employee is able to fulfill their tasks firstly according to industry and then company standards.
Having a job or even launching a successful project does not mean that one is good enough - especially in software where having a job doesn’t convince anyone to offer one a job without grueling interviews and where most of the software produced is riddled with bugs and security holes.
If one considers the hiring practices of top companies, they are absolutely claiming that the great majority of applicants are imposters.
What if the industry doesn’t even know how that task should be fulfilled or the company. There are some many projects/experiments/products are companies that good be delivered in some many ways.
> If one considers the hiring practices of top companies, they are absolutely claiming that the great majority of applicants are imposters.
It’s a logical fallacy that leetcode is only to filter imposters. And separately, gamification of interviews can definitely lead to real imposters.
What does this mean? What qualifies as "good enough"?
If you're not fired, you're good enough for your boss.
There are billions of people from poor regions who would put in way more effort than you. Many of them are smarter too. You make $100K / year to spend 35 hours / week drinking coffee and writing JavaScript, they make like $10K / year to spend 60 hours / week physical labor and getting yelled at. You'll never be good enough for them.
Also, there are 7+ billion people in the world. That means there are millions if not billions more talented than you. You're probably not even the most talented in your group.
But why does any of that matter? Literally nobody is good enough by those standards.
There's no objective "good enough". Those people from poor regions who work their asses off deserve more, you don't deserve less. In my eyes, don't be an asshole, contribute to society in some way, and you're good enough.
Except maybe one objective "good enough": if you're not fired, you're good enough for your boss. Honestly, some bosses have unrealistic standards so even that doesn't count.